[Peace-discuss] Obama admits to war views

[Randall Cotton]

: I keep thinking that Obama is a better man than he is seen to be in the
: political campaign snakepit.  I keep thinking of Earl Warren, who when
he
: was appointed was thought to be a conservative Supreme Court justice,
and
: then surprised just about everyone with his "liberalism" (there's that
word
: again).  The Warren Court turned out to be the most expansive, in terms
of
: individual rights, in American history.  A high water mark.

One problem with this comparison is that Supreme Court justices are
appointed for life. Another problem is that Supreme Court Justices are
largely self-contained independent entities. They are not dependent on a
Party, campaign contributors/volunteers corporate and not, favorable
treatment by the media, etc. They don't need to worry about being
re-elected in four years.

If I understand you correctly, you posit that Obama's deplorable positions
such as:

1. U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11
2. U.S. troops should stay in Iraq for things like "training", protection
of "U.S. personnel and facilities" and "targeted counter-terrorism
operations" (how would that be any different than what we're doing now?)

that these positions are really not his positions after all - he's just
*saying* that to get elected and then afterwards, he'll turn right around
and say and do the right thing.

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe. It's certainly comforting to think so,
but isn't that the way with all self-deceptive wishful thinking? I think
Obama's unusual background and especially his flowery rhetoric induces
people to write whatever they hope for on his largely blank slate. But his
conduct is indistinguishable from a "venal political huckster" who will
say and do anything to get elected (and you admit that's what you think
he's doing). What reason do we have for believing that once elected he
wouldn't continue to say and do anything to get *re*-elected?

In the way that it's possible a comet could obliterate Earth this
afternoon, I suppose it's possible that Obama is secretly planning a
Trojan horse strategy whereby, once elected, he will turn on a dime and
pull all U.S. military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, explaining that what
we're doing there only creates the kind of enmity that gave rise to 9/11
in the first place, finding a way to make reparations to the millions
we've victimized there. And he'll suddenly break with his unqualified
support for the state of Israel and immediately rein in the opulent
billions in annual military and financial support, explaining that this,
more than anything else, has been enabling the ongoing violent oppression
of millions of Palestinians and preventing the possibility of a successful
peace settlement. We could write in many more Trojan horse scenarios on
this blank slate.

But put on your best skeptic's hat (and you have some good one's I know)
and ask yourself what you really think the odds are that Obama really is
"a better man than he is seen to be" and that, unbeknownst to anyone on
the planet, he has been silently planning to surprise us all, once
elected, by saying and doing what we wish he would instead of what he has
actually been saying and doing all along.

Even in the improbable case that this dicey wishful thinking turned out to
be spot on, I maintain on principle that one shouldn't cast their vote
based on wishful thinking regardless.

R


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama admits to war views


: On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
wrote:
:
: The Jeremiah Wright controversy has exposed once again Obama's support
for
: > US war policy in the Middle East.  That support has been clear from
the time
: > of his campaign for the US Senate, although he has covered it with
attacks
: > on the war tactics (but not the overall strategy) of the Bush
: > administration.
: >
: > "Obama denounced [Wright's suggestion] that the United States was
attacked
: > because it engaged in terrorism on other people..." [NYT]. "When I say
I
: > find these comments appalling, I mean it," [Obama] declared. "It
contradicts
: > everything that I'm about and who I am" [G&M].
: >
: > "Obama cited Wright's contention ... that U.S. actions overseas were
: > partly to blame for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks ... Wright's
statements
: > 'offend me, they rightly offend all Americans and they should be
denounced
: > and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally today,' Obama
said
: > in a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina" [Bloomberg].
: >
: > Of course what Obama supports -- aggressive war in the Middle East in
: > "Afpak," Iran and Palestine as well as in Iraq -- is worse that
terrorism
: > and includes it, as the Nuremberg tribunal pointed out at the
beginning of
: > the post-WWII world. The tribunal, spelled out in the UN Charter,
declared
: > that initiation of a war of aggression is "the supreme international
crime
: > differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself
the
: > accumulated evil of the whole."
: >
: > But Obama rejects Wright's quite accurate characterization of US
policy.
: > --CGE
:
:
: *sigh*  You ain't never gonna get it, Carl, but Obama has no choice
: politically.  Wright's style as well as his substance are too
inflammatory
: for the average (white) American voter, who still buys into most of the
: mythologies that sustain our declining empire.
:
: I keep thinking that Obama is a better man than he is seen to be in the
: political campaign snakepit.  I keep thinking of Earl Warren, who when
he
: was appointed was thought to be a conservative Supreme Court justice,
and
: then surprised just about everyone with his "liberalism" (there's that
word
: again).  The Warren Court turned out to be the most expansive, in terms
of
: individual rights, in American history.  A high water mark.
:
: I entertain the hope that Obama will surprise even you, Carl, and turn
out
: to be another Lincoln or FDR, a statesman rather than a venal political
: huckster.  At least he's about 50,000 times better than the
alternatives.
:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------


: _______________________________________________
: Peace-discuss mailing list
: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
: